I called LSAC back in April and they said so far they have no plans for anywhere outside of N America going digital. But I'm guessing that would change eventually, and they'd probably give at least some warning?

(if boo were imagining everything in the movie)

Boo is only tormented by Randall because of her developed imagination, but Mike and Sully become her powerful allies who could ward off Randall also because of her capacity to imagine.

I think with MBF q's we gotta be careful with how they throw in almost random sounding general statements after talking about one other thing in detail.

In this case, they spent almost the whole stimulus talking about chorale preludes, but in the last 3 sentences, they shift into general statements not limited to just chorale preludes. They said "artists", not "artists who write chorale preludes", so "artist"s could mean anything from a painter to a rapper to Taylor Swift - not limited to artists that create chorale preludes. They also talked about "master artists" as a general set, also not limited to chorale prelude artists.

It says: Artists ←s→Create to express own (real) feelings, Master Artists → DON'T Create to express own (real) feelings, Bach →Master Artist. Again, here "create" refers to art in general, and both "artists" and "master artists" are not limited to just chorale prelude composers - for example, in this world described by the stimulus, Taylor Swift could be a Master Artist just like Bach, and thus, it follows that neither of them write songs or create any other kinds of art that express their true feelings. Perhaps Taylor did NOT know "you" were trouble when you walked in.

So we can infer that Bach→/Create to express own (real) feelings. Bach doesn't/never create(s) art that expresses his own feelings. This means any and ALL art that Bach creates, including non-chorale prelude music, do not express Bach's own feelings. E.g. he might've painted a happy-looking self-portrait when he was actually sad.

AC C contradicts the above inference, and so MBF.

Hope this long-winded explanation helped haha

I translated it as TE (teachers effective)→HSIL(help students become independent learners)→ESMD(enable students to make own decisions) →TPMD (teachers have power to make decisions) merging the ideas slightly, which I guess I probably shouldn't have done. Thankfully the AC E fails TPMD which MBF because of ESMD →TPMD which I did right.

In translating ESMD →TPMD, I though of it as: if students are enabled to make own decisions, then teachers have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms.

I also kinda saw "not until" as "only until", so only until TPMD can ESMD be possible, so TPMD is necessary for ESMD. Now that I think of it, maybe it makes sense, where "only" acts as group 4 logical indicator for necessary, so the idea immediately following it (TPMD) becomes the NC, and the other idea ESMD becomes the SC, ignoring the "until" as a logical indicator, but instead, using it as something to indicate the time, like until the time when TPMD is true, can ESMD be true.

lol hopefully this made sense!

Wait actually I just reread the AC and I think the grammar is messing me up. Is SOVA modifying the entire "process" of developing language competency or is it only modifying the maturation of vocal tract bit?

I think my Lawgic translation isn't entirely accurate, gotta go back and review the some most lessons lol

LC (development of language competency depends on) ‑m→ PMVT (physical maturation of vocal tract) →SOVA (speech oriented vocal activity) implies LC‑m→SOVA but not LC→SOVA... so I'm not sure why when failing SOVA (/SOVA) it becomes MBF...?

I think you might be accidentally equating "language" with spoken language only. AC B is saying development of ALL language (including sign language) competency need to be "speech oriented vocal activity", "requires" indicates necessity. So, LC→SOVA. Sentence 2 of stimulus makes this lawgic chain MBF because these deaf babies raised by deaf parents are "developing [sign] language competency" without doing "speech oriented vocal activity" - they're babbling in sign language instead.

I believe we maybe could disregard "physical maturation of vocal tract" bit and still get the answer right, because I think we can't assume that deaf babies don't have functional vocal tracts. I mean if we include that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it'd read like: LC (development of language competency depends on) ‑m→ PMVT (physical maturation of vocal tract) →SOVA. And the statement must be false because the development of sign language competency can be done (like shown in sentence 2) without "primarily' using vocal tract - they babble using sign language, which I think with the last sentence's mention of "hand gestures" may preclude the vocal tract from being the "primary" thing their language development depends on. It also fails the necessary condition of speech oriented vocal activity.

This was a long time ago, but I thought I'd still take a crack at answering it.

I think one could still use the "require" as a logical indicator in this instance, except that in this case, "requires" is modifying "eliminate discrimination against..." not "place of public accommodation". Here it's saying a PPA requires "the elimination of discrimination against...", so that becomes the necessary condition. Going by JY's labelling, it was correctly labeled as PPA->X.